Hi, ----- Original Message ----- > > Second, I've always been working under the assumption that placement > > is a function of workload as well as hardware. At least there's a lot > > of interesting space in the 'placement function choice'/'workload > > optimization' intersection. A lot of the CohortFS work after incorporating Ceph was indeed about adapting Ceph abstractions to provide first-class support for workload and tenant isolation, it is for me difficult to imagine not needing this in a system that addresses the problems Ceph does, at the intended scale. > > Hmm, this is true. I've been assuming the workload-informed placement > would be a tier, not something within a pool. The fundamental rados > property is that the map is enough to find your data... by it's *name*. > The moment the placement depends on who wrote 'foo' (and not the name of > 'foo') that doesn't work. Tiers are great, but they represent another compositional primitive, not an alternative to an ability to fundamentally construct the data/server aggregate In addition to workload, there is isolation. While geopolitical/regulatory scale segregation is important in cloud, more fine-grained isolation of all different kinds is important for policy contorl within data centers. I'm restricting myself to just a few points in this discussion for now, I am transiting an airport. Regards, Matt -- Matt Benjamin Red Hat, Inc. 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage tel. 734-707-0660 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
